Every figure this model derived for DD, the value it took, and
the element in the company's own XBRL it was read from — so any of it can be checked
against the filing rather than taken on trust.
As at 2026-06-30.
The figures, and where each came from
This is the part no other screener shows. Each figure below names the XBRL element it
was read from, so it can be checked against the filing itself.
The figures themselves rather than their scores — what somebody looking up
DD on one particular measure came for.
Ratio
Value
current ratio
2.43
current ratio reported
2.43
deferred revenue growth
300.0
dilution pct
0.0
ev owner earnings
109.4
ev sales
2.44
fcf margin
2.75
owner earnings margin
2.23
revenue growth
4.46
revenue growth per share
4.46
sbc pct revenue
0.52
What to be careful about
What this model itself distrusts about DD's figures. Written by the
derivation as it ran, not added afterwards.
presents no operating result; summing the costs it tags misses its own pre-tax profit by 15.5% of revenue, far more than interest can explain, so a cost line it does not tag is missing and the sum was refused rather than used
presents no operating result. It was rebuilt for the annual to 20251231, too far from this row's period (2026-06-30) to pair with it
no operating income found in XBRL
gross profit not tagged since 2018-12-31; rebuilt from RevenueFromContractWithCustomerExcludingAssessedTax - CostOfGoodsAndServicesSold
no forward EPS estimate; growth rests on filings only. Analyst consensus is not published in XBRL, so it has to be fetched from a data provider or set by hand in overrides.yaml as `eps_growth_2y`
quality DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 5 inputs could be computed (operating margin, roic, cash operating margin not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
valuation rests on 1 of 2 inputs; not tagged: ev ebit
resilience rests on 2 of 3 inputs; not tagged: interest cover
growth DROPPED from the total: only 2 of 4 inputs could be computed (margin trend, margin recent not tagged), so the score is not meaningful. Its weight is spread over the other dimensions
2 of 5 dimensions could not be measured (quality, growth -- 50% of the model), so this row is not comparable with the others; its total rests on what was left